Image de couverture
Séminaire
séminaire HistPhilPhys
Nous aurons le plaisir d'accueillir : Margarida Hermida (King’s College, Londres) Patricia Palacios (Univ de Salzbourg)
Titre : Philosophie de la biophysique
"On the Relationship Between Physics and Biology" (Margarida Hermida)
Philosophers of science often pitch physics against biology as different kinds of science; with physics supposed to be law-governed and deterministic, while biology is all about diversity and variation; its generalisations riddled with exceptions. There is, especially among philosophers of biology, a general distrust concerning physical explanations of biological phenomena, with fears of reductionism looming large. This contrasts sharply with scientific practice, where interdisciplinarity is now the norm, and biophysics is a thriving area of research that increasingly contributes to our understanding of the functioning of living things. In this talk I will briefly contrast Bohr and Schrodinger’s views concerning the relationship between physics and biology, and argue that the two sciences are far more integrated than is often realised, and in fact physical explanations pervade all areas of biology, including evolutionary biology. Far from threatening the autonomy of biology as a discipline, however, the progressive unification of biology with the physical sciences is responsible for much of its extraordinary success from the mid-twentieth century onwards, and this integration is key to understanding the complex phenomenon of life.
"New Perspectives on Criticality and Model Transfer" (Patricia Palacios )
Is there a common ground between the behavior of a flock of starlings and the polarization of opinions within human communities? Can we represent birds, fish and human opinions just like spins in a magnet? For years, scientists have conjectured that a certain type of collective behavior ubiquitous in nature adheres to common principles, which can be captured by the physics of criticality. Originally, this idea was largely speculative, but the last three decades have witnessed an increase in the number of concrete models in biology and socioeconomics that rely on the physics of criticality. Although plenty of resources are currently spent in the hope that physics can help us prevent unwanted coordinated events, such as population collapse or political radicalization, the foundations for transferring physics to other sciences remain unclear. What is transferred from physics to biology in the case of criticality? Why are some models of criticality outside of physics successful? What can we do to improve models of criticality? Is the export of the physics of criticality to other disciplines a reductionist project? In this talk, I will address these questions by stressing the limits and strengths of the export of the physics of criticality to biological and socioeconomic sciences.
Philosophers of science often pitch physics against biology as different kinds of science; with physics supposed to be law-governed and deterministic, while biology is all about diversity and variation; its generalisations riddled with exceptions. There is, especially among philosophers of biology, a general distrust concerning physical explanations of biological phenomena, with fears of reductionism looming large. This contrasts sharply with scientific practice, where interdisciplinarity is now the norm, and biophysics is a thriving area of research that increasingly contributes to our understanding of the functioning of living things. In this talk I will briefly contrast Bohr and Schrodinger’s views concerning the relationship between physics and biology, and argue that the two sciences are far more integrated than is often realised, and in fact physical explanations pervade all areas of biology, including evolutionary biology. Far from threatening the autonomy of biology as a discipline, however, the progressive unification of biology with the physical sciences is responsible for much of its extraordinary success from the mid-twentieth century onwards, and this integration is key to understanding the complex phenomenon of life.
"New Perspectives on Criticality and Model Transfer" (Patricia Palacios )
Is there a common ground between the behavior of a flock of starlings and the polarization of opinions within human communities? Can we represent birds, fish and human opinions just like spins in a magnet? For years, scientists have conjectured that a certain type of collective behavior ubiquitous in nature adheres to common principles, which can be captured by the physics of criticality. Originally, this idea was largely speculative, but the last three decades have witnessed an increase in the number of concrete models in biology and socioeconomics that rely on the physics of criticality. Although plenty of resources are currently spent in the hope that physics can help us prevent unwanted coordinated events, such as population collapse or political radicalization, the foundations for transferring physics to other sciences remain unclear. What is transferred from physics to biology in the case of criticality? Why are some models of criticality outside of physics successful? What can we do to improve models of criticality? Is the export of the physics of criticality to other disciplines a reductionist project? In this talk, I will address these questions by stressing the limits and strengths of the export of the physics of criticality to biological and socioeconomic sciences.
La séance se tiendra en mode hybride. Voici le lien Zoom
ID de réunion: 983 0016 1163
Code secret: 613650
Code secret: 613650